ArticlePloS one2021
What do patients and dermatologists prefer regarding low-risk basal cell carcinoma follow-up care? A discrete choice experiment.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Preferences of cancer survivors for follow-up care: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- Factors associated with patients' demand for low-value care: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFollow-up after low-risk basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is being provided more frequently than recommended by guidelines. To design an acceptable strategy to successfully reduce this 'low-value' care, it is important to obtain insights into the preferences of patients and dermatologists.
objectiveTo determine the preferences and needs of patients and dermatologists to reduce low-risk BCC follow-up care, and the trade-offs they are willing to make.
methodsA questionnaire including a discrete choice experiment was created, containing attributes regarding amount of follow-up, continuity of care, method of providing addition information, type of healthcare provider, duration of follow-up visits and skin examination. In total, 371 BCC patients and all Dutch dermatologists and dermatology residents (n = 620) were invited to complete the questionnaire. A panel latent class model was used for analysis.
resultsEighty-four dermatologists and 266 BCC patients (21% and 72% response rates respectively) completed the discrete choice experiment. If the post-treatment visit was performed by the same person as treatment provider and a hand-out was provided to patients containing personalised information, the acceptance of having no additional follow-up visits (i.e. following the guidelines) would increase from 55% to 77% by patients. Female patients and older dermatologists, however, are less willing to accept the guidelines and prefer additional follow-up visits. LIMITATIONS: The low response rate of dermatologists.
conclusionThis discrete choice experiment revealed a feasible strategy to substantially reduce costs, while maintaining quality of care, based on the preferences and needs of BCC patients, which is supported by dermatologists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.